Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Friday, September 8, 2017

Soros Is Doing A Lot To Demean Trump

BREAKING: Soros Caught Helping Kim Jong-Un

September 7, 2017 Frank Spear

George Soros, the owner of one of the deepest and most secretive wallets in the Democrat Party, may have finally extended his reach too far. He is helping North Korea and Kim Jong-un.

Refuse Fascism, a group funded by Soros, is attempting to pull the Democrats away from working in the interests of the United States, according to The Daily Caller. Back in July, Refuse Fascism released a statement that said the US is bullying and demonizing Kim Jong-un, and needs to reconsider. The statement urged the need to “stop thinking like an American,” and “start thinking about humanity.”

The Soros-funded organization has one goal in mind: to “resist” President Trump and his agenda–which is that of the American people–at all costs. They have fought hard against the messages and actions of the President, upping the ante every time they show their faces, so to speak.

Despite Kim Jong-un threatening nuclear annihilation, Refuse Fascism has much bigger “goals.” An internal memo revealed that they want to make the leaders in the United States lose legitimacy which will, in their minds, bring down the President.

The group recently responded after strict sanctions were imposed against North Korea on August 5th. They wanted to do everything they could to demonize the United States. Considering the number of people who follow these types of groups, this is very alarming.

Refuse Fascism’s statement about the sanctions on North Korea painted a very different picture from the truth. They made it sound as if the US is just throwing their weight around on poor, defenseless, Kim and his country.

As expected, they also have a completely distorted opinion on Jong-un threatening American territory with nuclear weapons that could annihilate Guam, the US mainland, or anywhere in between. The madness does not end there, however.

Soros’ group released a statement just last month that was full of outrage over the way the American media is using “lies and distortion” to paint North Korea in a negative light. Maybe they have not heard and seen that Kim runs one of the most ruthless, inhumane regimes in the world.

Ads by Revcontent

Fro

“No, we should not be comfortable with the disgusting media frenzy, full of lies and distortion, that marches us toward not just another invasion of a small country but a nuclear attack that can wipe out millions of people in one day and threaten the future of life on earth,” the group’s statement proudly declared.

Refuse Fascism is one of the groups that helped incite riots during and after inauguration weekend. Soros was paying for violence.

Now, with the United States less than a year into Trump’s presidency, it is time to ask, when is this too much? How much divisive, anti-American propaganda is allowed until action is taken?

George Soros is behind a domestic movement to counter the Trump administration’s actions against the despot Kim Jong-un. Is Soros executing the same propaganda campaign the Soviets did during the Vietnam War?

POLL: Is George Soros Trying to Sabotage Trump's Efforts on North Korea?

If this kind of behavior is allowed to continue, there will be more protests, more riots, more jaw dropping statements, and more chaos overall. Their goal of stopping President Trump in his tracks has failed, but their intent is clear.

The Left wants globalism to take over, and that just isn’t possible in the United States. Their increasing demands are accompanied by increasing hate and violence carried out by the likes of “Refuse Fascism.” Until something is done about this terrorist organization, they will continue to grow, and continue to put innocent American lives in danger.

McMaster Is NOT A Friend Of Israel

Past time Pres. Trump replaced Obama’s man, Nat’l Security Chief Gen’l H.R. McMaster — dedicated to Obama anti-US policies

(McMaster’s long list of people wrongly fired and wrongly appointed who are detrimental to the best interests of the United States.)

By Morton A. Klein, Elizabeth Berney and Daniel Mandel

Jewish & Israel News, Algemeiner.com

August 27, 2017

The Zionist Organization of America’s August 2017 report detailed US National Security Chief General H.R. McMaster’s troubling record regarding Iran, Israel and radical Islamist terrorism. McMaster’s statements and actions appear to be diametrically opposed to President Donald Trump’s support for Israel, opposition to the Iran nuclear deal and determination to name and combat radical Islamist terrorism.

Critics of ZOA’s report have failed to show that ZOA’s report was wrong in any substantive respect. The criticisms have amounted to name-calling against ZOA, and McMaster’s friends vouching for his character — which is irrelevant to the vital policy issues addressed in ZOA’s report.

McMaster reportedly wrongly refers to the existence of a Palestinian state before 1947 — when no Palestinian state ever existed, and maligns Israel as an “illegitimate,” “occupying power.” In fact, Israel’s re-establishment in 1948 and her self-defensive capture of Judea/Samaria (West Bank) in 1967 were both legal under binding international law, and deprived no country of its sovereign territory.

McMaster wrongly claimed that President Trump would recognize “Palestinian self determination” during his visit to Israel; reportedly opposed President Trump’s visit to Jerusalem’s Western Wall, refused to state that the Western Wall is in Israel, and insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could not accompany President Trump to the Western Wall.

And alarmingly, when Israel installed metal detectors at Jerusalem’s Temple Mount after Palestinian terrorists smuggled in firearms and murdered two Israeli policemen, McMaster, according to a senior defense official, described this as “just another excuse by the Israelis to repress the Arabs.”

In his short tenure at the National Security Council (NSC), General McMaster has fired or removed from the NSC six staunchly pro-Israel/anti-Iran officials: Steve Bannon; K.T. McFarland; Adam Lovinger; Rich Higgins, Derek Harvey and Ezra Cohen-Watnick.

McMaster quickly removed Bannon, architect of much of President Trump’s pro-Israel, anti-Islamist terrorism agenda, from the Principals Committee of the NSC. McMaster also promptly removed K.T. McFarland, a key member of the team of Iran deal opponents originally assembled by President Trump, and a veteran pro-Israel national security professional in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She was shunted off to be ambassador to Singapore. Lovinger, a pro-Israel national security strategist from the Pentagon, was returned to the Pentagon with his security clearance revoked.

McMaster also sacked Iran “hawk” Rich Higgins, the NSC’s director of strategic planning, after Higgins wrote a memo about personnel opposed to President Trump’s foreign policy agenda.

McMaster removed Derek Harvey, senior director for the Middle East, who has been described by former Army Vice Chief of Staff General Jack Keane as “hands down the very best intelligence analyst that the United States government has on Iraq,” after Harvey prepared a list of NSC Obama-era holdovers.

McMaster should have removed the personnel on Harvey’s list — but instead fired Harvey. And McMaster also fired Cohen-Watnick, a staunch opponent of the Iran deal, who sought to intensify efforts to counter Iran in in the Middle East and rein in officials opposed to the president’s policies.

McMaster’s replacements and appointees are on the wrong side of the issues of concern. McMaster appointed Colonel Kris Bauman, who has blamed Israel for Palestinian terror and urged Israel to negotiate with Hamas, to work on the Israel-Palestinian desk. Bauman is working to revive General Jim Allen’s defective and dangerous Obama-era plan for Palestinian statehood.

McMaster also replaced K.T. McFarland with Dina Habib-Powell — a defender of Huma Abedin and friend of pro-Iran-deal Obama era figures such as Valerie Jarett.

As PJ Media New York editor David Steinberg wrote: “One is hard-pressed to identify a member of the NSC brought in by McMaster with a history of aligning with President Trump on Iran or with his Mideast policy in general.”

A White House official estimated that well over fifty percent of the NSC staff are Obama holdovers.

McMaster has also promoted certifying that Iran is in compliance with the Iran deal — even though Iran: banned International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors from its Parchin nuclear facility; refused to allow IAEA investigators to interview Iran’s nuclear scientists; and has repeatedly tested intercontinental ballistic missiles in violation of UN Security Council resolutions; and despite German intelligence reports that Iran is cheating on the deal.

And when pressed about Iran’s violations, McMaster inaccurately and misleadingly stated that Iran is merely violating the Iran deal’s “spirit.” This flies the face of President Trump’s promise to tear up or rigorously enforce the Iran deal and punish violations.

Mirroring the Obama administration’s practices, McMaster opposes using the term “radical Islamic terrorism” or other indicia of terrorists’ jihadist ideology.

It’s notable that those who have castigated ZOA’s detailed critique of McMaster have failed to refute a single ZOA concern. They merely condemned ZOA as wrong and scurrilous. The most that any of ZOA’s critics could offer was the “opinion” of anonymous Israeli officials that McMaster is a “friend” and that there is “no need to agree with every position McMaster has taken.”
Another issue that’s been ignored is why has a bevy of anti-Trump, anti-Israel activists and groups — including CNN’s Van Jones, Media Matters, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — leapt to Trump appointee McMaster’s defense.

Yet they never leapt to defend the pro-Israel David Friedman’s appointment as ambassador to Israel when he was criticized. Meanwhile, many strong supporters of Israel have supported ZOA’s critique of McMaster’s actions.

All of ZOA’s critics have two things in common. They use ugly, nonsensical, vacuous name-calling to defend McMaster and they fail to refute a single issue of concern ZOA raised. The critics’ inability to address ZOA’s numerous concerns only strengthens ZOA’s case about McMaster’s hostility to Israel and failure to take strong action against Iran and radical Islami st terrorism.

RINO To The Core

Former Reagan official goes on viral rant: ‘100% of Trump supporters are racists’

Sarah Taylor Sep 5, 2017 2:05 pm

Former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett said on Facebook that all of President Donald Trump's supporters are "racists." He received wide criticism for his comments. (Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush and former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, shared a Facebook status Sunday in which he called “100%” of President Donald Trump supporters “racists.”

As a result of his comments, Bartlett’s posts went viral, and he received wide criticism that he responded to in a continual stream of social media updates that spanned a period of two days.

His anti-Trump rhetoric

Bartlett shared a profane message to his more than 6,200 Facebook followers, without any apparent provocation,

“There is no longer any doubt — ALL (100%) of Trump supporters are racists. If you don’t like it, f*** you,” Bartlett wrote.

After immense — and immediate — backlash, Bartlett shared a follow-up comment defending his original sentiment.

He wrote, “If I had said that all members of the KKK are racists, no one would doubt that I am right. The KKK has a long history of racism and no one would believe a person who joined in ignorance of that fact.”

Bartlett added that Trump’s “personal record” of racism is extensive, and qualified that “every major racist group in America supports Trump unequivocally.”

“Therefore,” he wrote, “it is a simple matter of logic that ANYONE who supports this a**hole is a racist. I rest my case.”

When the backlash ramped up, Bartlett noted that he wasn’t calling Trump voters racist: “I did not say all Trump VOTERS are racists, nor did I even imply that all Republicans are racists,” he clarified. “What I said is that all Trump SUPPORTERS are racists. That means the people who support Trump now, today, after all his horrible racist statements and actions. Those people are racists.”

Bartlett admitted after the previous post that he had blocked several Facebook users for “objecting to being called racists” and called them out for supporting a “racist president” and “Confederate flags” while complaining that those he blocked had ridiculed his “manhood.”

Bartlett continued his tirade Monday, writing, “I have blocked at least 100 people on FB today. I think they are all pro-Trump scum, but it’s possible I blocked some that were supporting me and I misunderstood their comments. If so, I am sorry.”

Tuesday morning saw a different version of Bartlett, who said he couldn’t understand why he had received so much hate over his rhetoric.

“Earlier this evening, I said that all Trump supporters are racists,” he wrote, and noted that as a result of his comments, he received an “outpouring of attacks and hatred.”

Bartlett said he understood the fallout, but couldn’t fathom why people cared about his comments.

“What I am curious about is why anyone gives a s**t what I said?” he asked. “If someone on FB said that all Hillary voters are Communists or pedophiles or whatever, I wouldn’t give a s**t. I certainly wouldn’t feel compelled to go to some stranger’s FB page and write a lot of hateful comments because of it. What am I missing?”

A theory behind Bartlett’s pot-stirring

Bartlett has a book coming out in October, and it seems there’s a distinct possibility that he could be needling Trump supporters in order to appear on liberals’ radars to drum up extra press for the book.

Titled “The Truth Matters: A Citizen’s Guide to Separating Facts From Lies and Stopping Fake News in Its Tracks,” the book sounds like it could be tailored for conservatives and Republicans who consistently hit out at “fake news.” But while promoting the new book, Bartlett tweeted in August that “Truth is the best defense against Trump.”

Another Never-Trumper

Bartlett has been nothing short of vocal about his dislike of Trump in recent years.

In June, Bartlett penned an op-ed for Politico, titled “Trump is What Happens When a Political Party Abandons Ideas,” which attacked the Republican Party for its “extremism” and “nuttiness” — both of which Bartlett said “drove” him away from the GOP platform.

Bartlett said that a 2015 op-ed he penned for Politico, in which he endorsed Trump — the article was titled “The Moderate Republican’s Case for Trump” — was intended to be a “tongue-in-cheek” effort because he assumed Trump would lose to Clinton.

He wrote, “Trump was a guaranteed loser, I thought. In the Virginia presidential primary, I even voted for him, hoping to hasten the party’s demise. In the weeks before the November election, I predicted a Clinton presidency would fix much of what ails our country. On November 8, I voted for Clinton and left the ballot booth reasonably sure she would win.”

Bartlett admitted that after Clinton lost the 2016 election, he abandoned reading all news.

“For two months after Trump won, I couldn’t read any news about the election, and considered abandoning political commentary permanently,” he wrote in his June op-ed. “It wasn’t just that Trump disgusted me; I was disgusted with myself for being so stupid. I no longer trusted my own powers of observation and analysis.”

If Sharpton Worried About Black Americans As Much As He Does Other Things, Maybe He Would Be A Positive Role Model Verses Not

Al Sharpton's Group Wants Kid Rock

Concert Canceled

Source: The Blaze
by: Sarah Taylor

Wikimedia Commons

A civil rights group plans to protest musician — and possible Michigan Senate

candidate — Kid Rock’s upcoming Detroit concerts, claiming that views held

by the rocker on NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, coupled with his support

of President Donald Trump, are “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

The National Action Network’s Detroit chapter on Thursday called for the

cancellation of Kid Rock’s — who’s real name is Robert Ritchie — series

of concerts as the opening act for the new Little Caesars sports arena in Detroit.

The National Action Network — a civil rights group founded by Rev. Al

Sharpton — has taken issue with Kid Rock’s support of Trump, the

appearance of Confederate flags during some of his concerts, and

attacks against national anthem protests.

The Des Moines Register reported that during a concert last month in Iowa,

Kid Rock told fans that “football’s about ready to start,” and added, “You know

what? F*** Colin Kaepernick.”

Maybe They Should Look In The Mirror

Thursday, September 7, 2017

Fools In Washington Are Not Looking Out For Americans--Only Themselves

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Bolton And FDR's Warning Will Be Ignored. The US Will Only Return Fire When A City Is Destroyed Or An EMP Attack Succeeds

FDR's 'Rattlesnake' Rule and the North Korean Threat

by John R. Bolton
September 6, 2017 at 11:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10954/north-korea-fdr-prevention

Share 35

Comment

"When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him." By these words in a Sept. 11, 1941, fireside chat, Franklin Roosevelt authorized US warships to fire first against Nazi naval vessels, which he called "the rattlesnakes of the Atlantic."
Roosevelt's order applied whenever German or Italian ships entered "waters of self-defense" necessary to protect the US, including those surrounding US outposts on Greenland and Iceland.

Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Image source: National Archives and Records Administration/Wikimedia Commons)

Uttered 60 years to the day before 9/11, and less than three months before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt's words still resonate. North Korea's sixth nuclear test last weekend, along with its significantly increased ballistic-missile testing, establishes that Pyongyang is perilously close to being able to hit targets across the continental United States with nuclear warheads, perhaps thermonuclear ones.
The Nazi threat to US shipping, both normal commercial traffic and war supplies destined for Great Britain, was undeniably significant, and the Axis powers' broader totalitarian threat was existential. Nonetheless, right up to Dec. 7, 1941, many American leaders urged caution to avoid provoking the Axis and thereby risking broader conflict. Pearl Harbor followed.
In his chat, Roosevelt observed that others had "refused to look the Nazi danger squarely in the eye until it actually had them by the throat." We shouldn't commit that mistake today. North Korea's behavior, and its lasting desire to conquer the South, have created the present crisis.
Letting Kim Jong-un's bizarre regime "have America by the throat," subjecting us and our allies to perpetual nuclear extortion, is not an acceptable outcome.
We have endured 25 years of US diplomatic failure, with endless rounds of negotiations, presenting North Korea with the choice between economic incentives or sanctions. During this time, which certainly constitutes "not looking the danger squarely in the eye," North Korea has repeatedly breached commitments to abandon its nuclear-weapons program, often made in return for handsome compensation.
Nonetheless, we hear echoes from Roosevelt's day that "there is no acceptable military option" when it comes to Pyongyang. This means, as Susan Rice said recently, "we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea," as we did with the Soviets in Cold War days. The US should not accept such counsels of despair, based on dangerously facile and wildly inaccurate historical analogies.
Why accept a future of unending nuclear blackmail by Pyongyang, whose governing logic is hardly that of Cold War Moscow, and which would entail not that era's essentially bipolar standoff, but a far-more-dangerous world of nuclear multipolarity?
If Washington lets Kim retain his nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, his regime will happily sell these materials and technologies to Iran, other rogue states or terrorist groups for the right price. This is another key difference from the Cold War; Moscow was substantially more worried about nuclear proliferation than Pyongyang now is.
It would be, as Roosevelt understood, "inexcusable folly" to ignore North Korea's pattern of behavior over the last quarter century: "We Americans are now face to face not with abstract theories but with cruel, relentless facts." For America in 1941, hope of sheltering behind the oceans was fast disappearing, forcing Roosevelt to extend our maritime defense perimeter effectively across the Atlantic to Europe.
In the age of ICBMs, there's no "perimeter"; we are at risk in agonizingly short time frames of a missile's flight launched anywhere, whether from North Korea or Iran. It is completely unacceptable to say we must await a first strike by Pyongyang before we will resort to military force. Roosevelt dismissed such arguments peremptorily: "Let us not say: 'We will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and passengers are drowned.' "
The remaining diplomatic options are few, and the time to exercise them dwindling fast. Convincing China that its national interests would be enhanced by reunifying the two Koreas, thus ending what Beijing itself believes is a threat to peace and security in northeast Asia, remains possible. Unfortunately, this is increasingly hard to accomplish before North Korea becomes a fully mature nuclear-weapons state.
We're moving rapidly to the point where Roosevelt said squarely, "It is the time for prevention of attack." George W. Bush spoke equally directly in 2002: "Our security will require all Americans to be . . . ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives." The alternative is potentially global proliferation of nuclear weapons, with the attendant risks lasting beyond our power to calculate.

John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is Chairman of Gatestone Institute, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad".
This article first appeared in The New York Post and is reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.

Follow John R. Bolton on Twitter

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.